Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings
Picking the league's best defenseman who cannot be relied upon to kill penalties is a joke. If he was a top DEFENSE (note the word defense, you know, the thing they should be contributing FIRST and FOREMOST)man, he should have been relied on to kill penalties.
You guys can gush over points. I saw a very ineffective defenseman when the game tightened up in the play-offs. We can continue deny that PK came in during our play-off run when Markov got injured, having only 2 regular season games under his belt, and was a key component to us defeating Pittsburgh in 7 games, and one of the few bright spots against Philadelphia in the Conference Finals.
You guys are absolutely hilarious. You would tear down every player this team has to prove a point that the grass is greener everywhere else. I don't really care about Karlsson's point total when he isn't a reliable piece in his own end (at this stage in his career, ever is debatable, but I won't make such bold proclamations that you guys like to I.E. PK will never win the Norris).
I'll take the guy who can score 40-50 points, score 10+ goals, hit, intimidate, annoy, and play the penalty kill.
You can take the guy who can score 70 points, can't hit, intimidate, annoy or play the penalty kill.
Most people line up to build their defense around guys like Chara, Lidstrom, Markov, Weber and Pronger.
Most teams don't line up to build their defense around guys like Green and Karlsson. They're nice pieces, but they aren't multi-dimensional and can end up hurting you.
|
Just because they're called defensemen doesn't mean defense is more important than offense.
You win a game by outscoring the other team, that means offense and defense are equally important.
You want players that are good at both. However, if one player is off the scales in one, then you tolerate imperfections in the other.